Order Code RL31490
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Updated August 14, 2002
Ben Canada
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Summary
The House and Senate proposals for a new Department of Homeland Security
would make the new department responsible for coordinating activities with, and
providing assistance to, state and local governments to ensure adequate preparedness
for possible terrorist attacks. H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 would place these functions
within the Emergency Preparedness and Response division (EPR), which would
integrate existing agencies with functions relating to state and local preparedness,
such as:
! Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
! Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ);
! National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI);
! Office of Emergency Preparedness (HHS), including the National Disaster
Medical System and Metropolitan Medical Response System; and,
! National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (HHS).
Congress will likely debate a number of issues as it considers H.R. 5005 and S.
2452, including how best to structure the department to act as a single point of
contact for state and local officials. The Administration states that this is one of its
primary goals for the new department. As part of this issue, Congress will consider
the authority and duties of an Office of State and Local Government Coordination.
Another issue is how the department will set standards and evaluate state and
local preparedness. The Administration proposes that the new department establish
standards for responding to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) incidents and
developing a nationwide training and evaluation system. Congress might consider
the degree of authority the new department should have to encourage or require
standards and to evaluate state and local preparedness.
Congress may also be asked to consider the way in which the department will
integrate training programs from different agencies. Administration officials have
stated that first responder training will not be done in a law enforcement context,
which concerns some policymakers and emergency managers. Congress could fully
or partially integrate training programs, or it could establish a commission to further
study the issue.
A final issue is whether integrating FEMA into the new department would
impact state and local preparedness for natural disasters. Some observers argue that
FEMA should remain an independent agency so that its effectiveness will not be
encumbered by a larger department. Other observers, however, contend that FEMA’s
resources should be used by the new department to better prepare states and localities
for all disasters, including terrorist attacks.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Proposed Department Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Issues Affecting State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Single Department to Coordinate Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Setting Standards and Evaluating State and Local Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . 6
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Focus of First Responder Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Preparedness for Natural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Figures
Figure 1. Existing Standards and Assessment Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

The Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Introduction
Both H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 propose a new Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), which would have a number of responsibilities relating to state and local
preparedness for potential terrorist attacks. This report discusses selected state and
local preparedness issues that specifically pertain to the proposed Emergency
Preparedness and Response Division of the new department.1 The report does not,
however, discuss certain issues, such as the impact of integrating selected offices
from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into a new DHS,2 and the
degree of authority the DHS would need to effectively evaluate state and local
assistance programs.
Overview of Proposed Department Functions
H.R. 5005 (as passed by the House on July 26, 2002) and S. 2452 (as agreed to
by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on July 25, 2002) would require the
Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate activities with, and provide
assistance to, state and local governments to ensure adequate preparedness for
possible terrorist attacks.3 The DHS Secretary would be responsible for administering
grant programs for state and local first responders, including firefighters, emergency
medical personnel, law enforcement, and related personnel.4
The Administration recommended placing these functions in the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Division (EPR), which would integrate several existing
agencies with functions relating to state and local preparedness, including:5
1This report uses the term “division” generically to refer to the various administrative units
proposed in H.R. 5005 and S. 2452. The bills, however, use such terms as division,
directorate, and office.
2The House and Senate bills propose transferring from HHS to DHS the Office of
Emergency Preparedness, the National Disaster Medical System, and the Metropolitan
Medical Response System.
3H.R. 5005 (as passed by the House on July 26, 2002), sec. 102(c), sec. 501; and S. 2452 (as
agreed to by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on July 26, 2002), sec. 134(b).
4See H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 2(6).
5H.R. 5005 (as introduced), sec. 502.

---

CRS-2
! Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—Administers a range of
planning, training, equipment, and exercise programs for states and localities;6
! Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ)—Offers planning assistance,
equipment grants, and training for responding to weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) incidents; training is offered in a law enforcement context;7
! National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI)—Acts as an information
clearinghouse to assist state and local responders with planning, training,
equipment, and exercise needs necessary to respond to WMD incidents;8
! Office of Emergency Preparedness and the National Disaster Medical System
(HHS)—Assists state and local governments with planning for public health
emergencies, including bioterrorism, and coordinates federal medical services
during disaster response.9
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (HHS)—Seeks to coordinate the
efforts of local law enforcement, fire, hazardous materials, EMS, hospital,
public health and other personnel to improve response capabilities in the event
of a WMD incident;10
! National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (HHS)—The stockpile stands ready for
immediate deployment to any U.S. location in the event of a terrorist attack
involving a biological toxin or chemical agent.11
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs agreed with the President and
located those functions in the EPR division.12 The House included most of those
functions in the EPR division, but it placed the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(DOJ) and National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI) in the Border and
Transportation Security Division rather than the EPR division.13
Among the activities H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 propose for the EPR division are
providing training and equipment to first responders, developing interoperable
communications systems, and coordinating threat alerts to state and local
governments. Both bills also propose an Office of State and Local Government
6The Federal Emergency Management web site is: [http://www.fema.gov].
7The Office of Domestic Preparedness web site is: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/].
8The National Domestic Preparedness Office web site is: [http://www.ndpo.gov].
9The Office of Emergency Preparedness web site is: [http://ndms.dhhs.gov/].
10The Metropolitan Medical Response System web site is: [http://www.mmrs.hhs.gov/].
11For information on the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, see: [http://www.cdc.gov/
nceh/nps/default.htm].
12S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 134(c).
13H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 402(5), (6), and (7), and sec. 502. Also see sec. 506, added by
H.Amdt. 575 (Young), agreed to July 25, 2002.

---

CRS-3
Coordination, which could be charged with coordinating departmental activities
relating to states and localities, and assessing state and local needs. Neither H.R.
5005 nor S. 2452 incorporates the Administration proposal that the EPR division
support states and localities by establishing training standards, developing a national
training and evaluation system, and streamlining grant applications.14
This report discusses the following issues that have arisen as Congress debated
the structure and responsibilities of the new department:
1.
How can the department best be structured to act as a single point of
contact for state and local officials?
2.
How will the department set standards and evaluate state and local
preparedness?
3.
How will the new EPR division integrate training programs from different
agencies? And,
4.
What impact would the integration of FEMA into the DHS have on state
and local preparedness for natural disasters?
Issues Affecting State and Local Governments
H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 call attention to a number of issues related to state and
local preparedness. This section is not a comprehensive discussion of relevant issues,
but rather discusses selected issues pertaining to state and local preparedness and the
proposed EPR division.
Single Department to Coordinate Assistance
The Administration proposal says that the DHS “would give state and local
officials one primary contact instead of many, and would give these officials one
contact when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, exercises
and other critical homeland security needs.”15 At present, grants and training
programs for first responders are offered by agencies within the Departments of
Defense, Health and Human Services, and Justice, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).16 Some of the programs focusing on first responder
preparedness, such as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program within the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (DOJ), have been previously transferred from one department
to another. The multiplicity of agencies offering assistance, and the subsequent
shifting of agency responsibilities, have reportedly led to some frustration and
confusion among state and local officials attempting to secure federal funds. In
14U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, (Washington: June 2002), p. 11.
Available at:[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/book.pdf], visited June 28, 2002.
15Ibid., p. 16.
16For descriptions of current programs, see CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness:
Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.

---

CRS-4
addition, state and local officials argue that the application process is burdensome
and inconsistent among federal agencies.17
Analysis. H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 address these administrative concerns by
making DHS responsible for coordinating and assisting the homeland security efforts
of states and localities. H.R. 5005 would make the EPR division responsible for
most assistance programs and coordination activities, although it would transfer the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ) and the National Domestic Preparedness
Office (FBI) to the Border and Transportation Security division.18 Other coordination
duties, such as information sharing, would be assigned to the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection division, Office of Science and Technology, and a
National Council for First Responders.19 Similarly, S. 2452 (as agreed to) would
create the EPR division, but assign other state and local preparedness functions to a
number of other directorates, including the Directorate for Intelligence and Office of
Science and Technology.20
Some observers maintain that dividing coordination functions among multiple
divisions and offices (even within one department) may not achieve the
Administration’s stated goal of creating a single point of contact for state and local
officials. They see at least two possible problems. First, coordination might not be
improved. For example, H.R. 5005 assigns most coordination duties to the EPR
division, but also assigns functions of the Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ),
which focuses on first responder preparedness, to the Border and Transportation
Security division.21 Differences in regulations issued by the divisions could prevent
the development of a consistent, department-wide approach to providing assistance.
Some have noted that in past reorganizations, such as the Departments of Defense,
Transportation, and Energy, agencies with similar functions have been placed under
one department, but have not necessarily coordinated activities.22
Second, they point out that state and local officials would still have to contact
different agencies within DHS depending on their area of need. This seemingly
conflicts with the Administration’s goal to develop a “one stop” department for state
and local assistance.
17Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore Commission), Third Annual Report to the President
and the Congress (Washington: December 15, 2001), p. 10; National League of Cities,
Domestic Terrorism: Resources for Local Governments (Washington: 2000), p. 20; U.S.
General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related
Recommendations, GAO Report GAO-01-822 (Washington: Sept. 20, 2001), pp. 96-98.
18H.R. 5005, sec. 402(5), (6), and (7).
19H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 104(c)(1), sec. 301(6)(C), and sec. 201(3), (6), and (8).
20S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 134, sec. 132(b), and sec. 135 (c)(2)(E).
21H.R. 5005, sec. 402(5), (6), and (7).
22Sydney J. Freedberg, Corine Hegland, and Margaret Kriz, “Three Departments Offer
Important Lessons on Reorganization,” National Journal, June 15, 2002, pp. 1770-1772.

---

CRS-5
These potential problems arguably have been addressed by Congress through
the proposed establishment of an Office for State and Local Government
Coordination, which is proposed in the House and Senate bills. H.R. 5005 and S.
2452 would instruct the office to:
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to State and local
government; (2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by State and local
government to implement the national strategy for combating terrorism; (3)
provide State and local government with regular information, research, and
technical support to assist local efforts at securing the homeland; and (4) develop
a process for receiving meaningful input from State and local government to
assist the development of the national strategy for combating terrorism and other
homeland security activities.23
S. 2452, as agreed to by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, would
also require the Office of State and Local Government Coordination to appoint a
DHS liaison to each state to coordinate federal assistance, assess state and local
needs, and provide training and information. The Senate bill would also require the
Chief Homeland Security Liaison to report annually on state and local needs, federal
program effectiveness, and recommendations for changes in federal statutes.
Furthermore, it would create a Federal Interagency Committee on First Responders
and instruct it to ensure coordination among federal agencies involved with state and
local preparedness.24
Policy Alternatives.
Authorize an Office for State and Local Government Coordination. This
approach, which is being taken in H.R. 5005 and S. 2452, would essentially seek to
“coordinate the coordinators.” A questions remains, however, about the extent of the
office’s duties. As described above, both bills list four basic functions for the office,
but the Senate bill instructs it to conduct several other activities that could further
assist states and localities to procure federal assistance and improve their level of
preparedness. S. 2452 also calls for annual reports on state and local needs, which
could assist Congress in appropriating funds for state and local preparedness
programs.
The office’s mission arguably could be enhanced by incorporating into it the
National Clearinghouse on Emergency Preparedness proposed in S. 2452. The
Senate bill proposes that the clearinghouse maintain a “one-stop shop” for
information on federal preparedness grants. It would also make available to state and
local officials information on best practices in emergency management.25 This
approach could address the concerns of state and local officials about the lack of a
single point of contact.
23H.Amdt. 587 to H.R. 5005 (Rush), agreed to July 25, 2002; S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec.
137(b).
24S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 137(c), (d), and (e).
25S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 152.

---

CRS-6
Another issue concerns the office’s degree of authority. If it has too much
authority it might interfere with the ability of agencies within DHS to conduct their
mission. On the other hand, if it has too little authority, the office may be ineffective
and an uncoordinated approach to providing assistance could result.
Authorizing an Office for State and Local Government Coordination could
overlap with the duties of the Office of National Preparedness (ONP) within FEMA.
In May 2001, President Bush instructed FEMA to establish the ONP to “coordinate
all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence
management within the [federal government] ...” and to “... work closely with state
and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are
addressed.”26 This potential overlap could be addressed by consolidating the ONP
and the Office for State and Local Government Coordination, or by clearly
distinguishing in legislation the duties of each office.
Place Coordination Activities in the EPR Division. Yet another alternative
would be to place all coordination and assistance activities within the department’s
EPR division, including grant programs, standard setting, and intelligence sharing,
among others. This, arguably, would be the most effective method of creating a
“one-stop shop” for state and local officials. This approach, however, could present
administrative difficulties. For example, a state official seeking technical assistance
might contact the EPR division, but the federal officials with the desired expertise
could reside in another DHS division or another federal agency. Depending on
departmental regulations and practices, the state official might never gain access to
the DHS’s most knowledgeable personnel, or access could be delayed. Assigning all
coordination and assistance duties to a single division could make it difficult for the
DHS to make all its expertise and other resources available to state and local
officials. Placing all coordination and assistance activities within the EPR division
could also detract resources from the division’s natural disaster preparedness mission
(see “Preparedness for Natural Disasters,” below).
Setting Standards and Evaluating State
and Local Preparedness
Preparedness standards specify activities and levels of competence that state and
local responders are encouraged to achieve and maintain. Standards may be
technical, such as for communications equipment, or operational, such as for
response planning and training. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), and FEMA have worked
together to develop voluntary standards, and to encourage states and localities to
assess their competency based on those standards (see Figure 1, below). Standards
have been developed for most emergency management functions, from the broadest
functions, such as response planning, to more specific ones like response to
hazardous materials incidents.
26U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Structure of the Office of National
Preparedness” (Washington: Feb. 15, 2002), pp. 2-3. The Administration proposal does not
address the role of ONP in the new department.

---

CRS-7
The Administration’s report on the DHS states that the Emergency Preparedness
and Response division (EPR) would “develop and manage a national training and
evaluation system to design curriculums, set standards, evaluate, and reward
performance in local, state, and federal training efforts.”27 The Senate bill, as
introduced, also addressed standard-setting by authorizing the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response to establish training and equipment standards
for state and local first responders, as well as federal authorities.28 This function,
however, was not included in the version of S. 2452 agreed to on July 25, 2002.
Analysis. In considering the role of the DHS in standard setting and
evaluating state and local preparedness, Congress may ask whether the department
would build upon existing standards and evaluation mechanisms. The efforts of
NFPA, NEMA, and FEMA are summarized in Figure 1, below. Unless existing
standards and assessments were modified or eliminated, new and separate standards
and assessments could impose a duplicative administrative burden on state and local
officials. On the other hand, national standards could lead to significant
improvements in state and local response capability.
Figure 1. Existing Standards and Assessment Processes
The National Fire Protection Association’s code 1600 establishes standards for
emergency planning and capabilities. The code organizes the standards into 13 emergency
management functions. It is designed to apply to any public or private entity that is required
to develop emergency response plans by legislation, regulation, or agency policy. While the
standards are voluntary, they are commonly accepted standards and would likely be the
standards applied in any judicial action involving a government’s emergency response.
FEMA’s Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) is a self-assessment process for
state-level emergency management agencies to use to evaluate their own readiness. The CAR
process is presently being pilot-tested for use at the local level. The process, which is
organized around the same 13 emergency management functions used in NFPA 1600, is
intended to help states develop strategic goals to improve their readiness. While governments
can conduct the assessment on their own, they are encouraged to work with the FEMA
regional office.
The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), which is administered by
the National Emergency Management Association, is a structured, independent evaluation
process that requires agencies seeking accreditation to undergo FEMA’s Capability
Assessment for Readiness (CAR) process. EMAP, however, requires documentation and
outside review to ensure the agency has effectively undergone the self-assessment.
Accreditation is meant to provide a means of identifying agencies that meet national standards
and offers a strategy for continuous improvement.
27U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, p. 11. H.R. 5005, however,
does not contain an explicit provision that instructs the EPR division to conduct such
activities.
28S. 2452 (as introduced), sec. 103(a)(3)(F).

---

CRS-8
Another issue is the degree of authority the DHS should have to encourage
standards. Some observers favor voluntary standards, while others support
mandatory standards. FEMA officials, as well as Director of Homeland Security
Tom Ridge, have expressed support for nationwide standards for all first responders.
FEMA officials, however, have previously stated that any grant funds they award
should not be contingent on satisfying those standards. Rather, FEMA hopes to
encourage states and localities to adopt common standards for equipment, training,
mutual aid, and other aspects of emergency management. Bruce Baughman, Director
of FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness, hopes nationwide standards will be
prepared by October 2002.29 On the other hand, some observers believe preparedness
standards need to be required and institutionalized. One analyst stated in her
congressional testimony:
The prerequisite for institutionalization is standards, and all of the response
disciplines—fire, police, EMS, hospital care providers—[have] expressed an
abundance of frustration over the absence of standards and protocols to guide
them. Standards command the attention of rescue and healthcare personnel
because they are the backbone of accountability.30
Policy Alternatives.
Give DHS Authority. Were Congress to determine that state and local
adherence to standards is imperative to homeland security, it could give the DHS a
degree of authority to develop, encourage, or require standards.31 Early versions of
H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 included provisions on standard setting. H.R. 5005, as
introduced, instructed the Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, and Radiological
Countermeasures (CBRN) division to establish guidelines for state and local response
to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.32 The House-passed
version of H.R. 5005 takes a narrower approach, addressing only standards for
response equipment. The bill creates a Homeland Security Institute and instructs it
to identify instances when “... common standards and protocols could improve the
interoperability and effective utilization of tools developed for field operators and
first responders.”33 S. 2452, as reported in June 24, 2002, would have authorized the
29Quoted in Bridgette Blair, “FEMA Seeks National Rules for Emergency Response,”
Federal Times, March 11, 2001, p. 10.
30Statement of Amy E. Smithson, Senior Associate, Henry L. Stimson Center, in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, A Silent War: Are
Federal, State, and Local Governments Prepared for Biological and Chemical Attacks?,
hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 5, 2001.
31Such a policy approach is taken in S. 2664, the First Responder Terrorism Preparedness
Act of 2002. The bill, which was reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee in July 2002, would authorize the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA to
develop standards for plans, training, and equipment. For more information see CRS Report
RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
32H.R. 5005 (as introduced), sec. 301(4).
33H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 310(c)(4).

---

CRS-9
EPR division to develop training and equipment standards for first responders.34 The
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee’s July 26 version of S. 2452, however, does
not contain a similar provision.
In its congressional testimony, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has
laid out a range of approaches Congress could take. Congress could legislate federal
minimum standards that preempt state-level standards perceived to be below the
desired minimum level. Alternatively, it could condition the receipt of federal grants
on satisfying federal minimum standards. Yet another approach would be to
authorize the DHS to undertake cooperative programs to encourage voluntary
adoption of standards.35
Preempting state regulations or conditioning federal grants could impose
significant financial burdens on states and localities. Some equipment, such as
interoperable communications infrastructure and WMD response equipment, could
be prohibitively expensive even with federal assistance. If Congress decided to
condition federal grants on compliance with national standards, some recipients
might be deterred from accepting the grants. This might be more likely to occur in
jurisdictions perceiving themselves to be at low risk of a terrorist attack. On the
other hand, considering the nationwide salience of the issue of terrorism preparedness
and the fact that many states are experiencing significant budget difficulties, states
and localities might readily accept federal assistance and any accompanying
conditions. Congress might also find that cooperative programs carried out by the
DHS would be insufficient for achieving the desired level of preparedness.
Regular State-Level Assessments. Another option would be to instruct the
DHS to regularly evaluate the overall preparedness of states to respond to WMD
events. Such a measure, which was added to H.R. 5005, would instruct the DHS to
report to Congress every two years on the preparedness of each state.36 In 2000,
FEMA conducted a nationwide assessment through its Capability Assessment for
Readiness process (CAR), which some state and local emergency managers say is a
useful evaluation mechanism.37 The CAR, however, contains only a limited number
of broad performance indicators directly addressing preparedness for WMD events.38
34S. 2452 (as reported June 2002), sec. 103(a)(3)(F).
35U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships Through
a National Preparedness Strategy, GAO Testimony GAO-02-549T (Washington: March 28,
2002), pp. 14-15. Also see “Conditioning Grants” in CRS Report RL30778, Federal Grants
to State and Local Governments: Concepts for Legislative Design and Oversight, by Ben
Canada.
36H.Amdt. 588 (Shays/Watson) to H.R. 5005, agreed to July 25,2002.
37See statement of Woodbury Fogg, Director, New Hampshire Office of Emergency
Management, on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association, House
Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, hearings, Oct. 5, 2001.
38FEMA’s 2000 CAR report lists the following four broad performance indicators
addressing WMD preparedness: (1) acquire appropriate equipment for WMD response; (2)
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
Congress could further instruct the EPR division to build upon the existing CAR,
enhancing its ability to comprehensively assess state preparedness for WMD events.
While this option could lead to improved assessments, it could also impose an
administrative burden on state and local officials undertaking the assessments, unless
Congress appropriated funds to assist states in completing the assessments.
Interdivisional Coordination. Whatever level of standard-setting authority
Congress decides to give to the DHS, the EPR division and other divisions with
relevant functions could be instructed to coordinate their activities with relevant
nongovernmental organizations. As discussed above, several organizations
representing state and local first responders have developed voluntary standards,
which could serve as a foundation for developing nationwide standards for WMD
preparedness and response.
Focus of First Responder Training Programs
Both H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 would direct the DHS Secretary to provide training
concerning terrorist attacks and natural disasters to state and local first responders,
including firefighters and emergency medical, law enforcement, public health, and
other related personnel.39 Both bills would integrate into the DHS several agencies
that currently offer training to first responders, including the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Justice Department’s Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), among others.40
Analysis. H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 direct the Emergency Preparedness and
Response division (EPR) to conduct first responder training, but do not directly
address the focus and content of DHS training programs. There are disagreements
among policymakers, federal officials, and state and local officials as to whether
terrorism response training should be taught in a law enforcement context.
Under the Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan
(CONPLAN), terrorism response is presently divided into consequence management,
which involves response to and recovery from attacks, and crisis management, which
involves criminal investigations and the pursuit of terrorists.41 The existing array of
federal training programs for first responders can be grouped into these two
categories. Training courses offered by FEMA have traditionally focused on only
consequence management activities, no matter the type of disaster. Training offered
38(...continued)
address WMD attacks in emergency operations plans; (3) develop procedures for responding
to WMD attacks; and (4) regularly exercise the WMD response plans. See U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, State Capability Assessment for Readiness, Report to
Senate Committee on Appropriations (Washington: Sept. 2001), pp. 129-130.
39H.R. 5005 (as passed) sec. 102(c) and sec. 501(1); S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 134; Also
see U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, p. 11.
40H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 501; S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 134.
41The CONPLAN is available at the FBI web site: [http://www.fbi.gov/publications/
conplan/conplan.pdf], visited July 1, 2002.

---

CRS-11
by the ODP, however, treats terrorist attacks as criminal acts, and thus takes place in
a crisis management and law enforcement context.
Some policymakers and observers argue that a terrorist attack is not only a
disaster scene but also a crime scene, and thus training should be adapted to suit law
enforcement needs. This could involve teaching all first responders certain law
enforcement techniques that would not be needed in a natural disaster context, such
as crime scene preservation, evidence recognition, and perimeter security. One
analyst wrote of the importance of all first responders receiving such training:
Evidence conservation is an important issue and may involve everything from the
identification of debris lying long distances from the incident to acquisition of
a victim’s clothing. Emergency responders must be taught to preserve evidence,
taking care not to destroy or discard anything. Even clothing cut from
contaminated and injured victims must be bagged, marked, and maintained.42
Some observers also argue that law enforcement training is necessary to teach first
responders to recognize signs of “secondary devices”—explosives used for the
explicit purpose of harming first responders and civilian onlookers. Some observers
believe that there is a rising trend in the use of secondary devices.43
Such training is currently available to all first responders through the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) of the Department of Justice.44 In recent months, the
Administration has proposed a series of transfers of the ODP. In February 2002, the
Administration’s FY2003 budget proposed that ODP be transferred to FEMA in an
effort to consolidate first responder assistance programs in one agency.45
Subsequently, the Administration proposed incorporating FEMA into the new DHS.
H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 follow these proposals and integrate both FEMA and ODP
into the new DHS.
The Administration, however, has argued that first responders should not be
trained in law enforcement techniques, arguing that the distinction between crisis
management and consequence management, which is the basis for such training, is
an “artificial distinction.”46 Administration officials have said that they are not in
favor of including law enforcement techniques in DHS training programs. FEMA
Director Joe Allbaugh stated that, “[w]hile FEMA will coordinate grants and
assistance to first responders, it will not assume any law enforcement functions, nor
will FEMA provide law enforcement training—training on investigation techniques,
42Armando Bevelacqua and Richard Stilp, Terrorism Handbook for Operational Responders
(Albany, NY: Delmar, 2002), p. 5.
43Ibid., pp. 13-14.
44The ODP web site is: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/].
45See statement of Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, U.S. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, First
Responder Initiative, hearings, March 12, 2002.
46U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, p. 12.

---

CRS-12
evidence collection techniques, rights of suspects and detainees, or the like.”47
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge also stated that during a response to a
terrorist attack, first responders would likely concentrate on saving lives and not on
criminal investigations.48 This training approach is supported by some analysts,
including one who stated, “... the distinction between incident management and
consequence management [is] a false dichotomy. Terrorism is a crime that has to be
investigated, and at the same time the victims have to be treated.”49
Policy Alternatives.
Full Integration. Offering training in a law enforcement context and
integrating training into one department could both be viewed as desirable goals.
Thus, the functions of FEMA and ODP could be incorporated within the new
Emergency Preparedness and Response division (EPR) of the DHS, as proposed in
S. 2452. The EPR division could be instructed to include appropriate law
enforcement techniques in its terrorism-oriented training. Some observers believe
that the inclusion of law enforcement techniques in training programs does not
conflict with the consequence management functions of first responders. One
observer stated, “... It is possible to carry out the emergency responders’ mission
without creating more problems for the crime scene. This is best accomplished
through training and awareness of potential crime scenes. and acting to minimize
damage to the area and its contents.”50
This approach, however, could delay the availability of training for first
responders because the new EPR division might require some time to integrate the
ODP and FEMA training curricula. This approach might also meet resistance from
some state and local law enforcement officials who have supported the Justice
Department’s retention of the ODP.51
Integrate ODP, not FEMA. Another approach would be to integrate the ODP
into the DHS, as well as the homeland security functions of FEMA (including the
Office of National Preparedness), but leave FEMA as an independent agency. In
effect, this would divide federal emergency management training into two categories:
terrorism training offered by the DHS and natural disaster training offered by FEMA.
DHS could be instructed to include law enforcement techniques in its training, while
47Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, letter to Hon.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., March 13, 2002, p. 2.
48Tom Ridge, Director, White House Office of Homeland Security, briefing before the
National Sheriff’s Association, Federal News Service, March 1, 2002.
49Anser Institute, “Consequence Management in the Wake of the Attack on America,”
Journal of Homeland Security, Sept. 13, 2001. Available at:
[http://www.homelanddefense.org/journal/ Interviews/displayInterview.asp?interview=6],
visited July 18, 2002.
50Paul. M. Maniscalco and Hank T. Christen, Understanding Terrorism and Managing the
Consequences (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), pp. 254-255.
51See International Brotherhood of Police Officers, letter to Hon. Lamar Smith, March 8,
2002.

---

CRS-13
FEMA could be given discretion to omit such training from its natural disaster
training. This, arguably, would be consistent with the Administration’s stated goal
of consolidating all homeland security training programs into one department. It
could also address the concerns of some observers and policy makers that FEMA
should not be included in the DHS because the majority of its activities deal with
natural disasters.52 On the other hand, this approach may not address the concerns
of state and local officials about the fragmentation in federal training opportunities.
Integrate FEMA, not ODP. A related alternative would be to allow the Justice
Department to retain ODP and continue to offer its training courses. This alternative
could be considered whether or not Congress includes FEMA in a new DHS. This
approach would allow state and local first responders to acquire training in a law
enforcement context, in addition to the training offerings by FEMA and a new DHS.
Some organizations representing first responders, as well as some policy makers,
have supported the Justice Department’s retention of ODP, arguing the FEMA does
not have the necessary experience to train first responders to deal with the law
enforcement aspects of terrorist attacks.53 On the other hand, this approach might
not accomplish the Administration’s goal of creating a single department to
administer training to first responders, and might prolong the perceived overlaps in
federal training opportunities, which have prompted frequent criticism of federal
policy on state and local preparedness.54
Establish Commission. Yet another alternative would be instruct a
commission to evaluate the need for including law enforcement techniques in
terrorism-oriented training for first responders. The House and Senate bills both
propose using advisory committees to address first responder needs.55 Considering
that the implementation of a DHS reorganization would require several months, if not
years, there may be sufficient time for a commission to thoroughly study such issues.
A commission could include representatives from all first responder groups at all
levels of government and make recommendations for the DHS training curricula.
Preparedness for Natural Disasters
Although FEMA is perhaps best known for assistance after disasters, the agency
is also responsible for helping states and localities prepare for natural disasters,
52See House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Explanation of Manager’s
Amendment to H.R. 5005,” July 11, 2002; House Judiciary Committee, “Views and
Recommendations on H.R. 5005,” July 12, 2002; James Lee Witt and Associates,
Department of Homeland Security and FEMA (Washington: 2002), unpublished.
53See letter from Hon. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. to Hon. C.W. Bill Young, May 20, 2002;
International Association of Fire Fighters, letter to Hon. Robert C. Byrd and Hon. Ted
Stevens, March 28, 2002; International Brotherhood of Police Officers, letter to Hon. Lamar
Smith, March 8, 2002.
54Gilmore Commission, Third Annual Report, p. 10; National League of Cities, Domestic
Terrorism: Resources for Local Governments, p. 20; U.S. General Accounting Office,
Selected Challenges and Recommendations, pp. 96-98.
55H.R. 5005 (as passed), sec. 104; S. 2452 (as agreed to), sec. 137(d) and (e).

---

CRS-14
including floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. Two entities within the agency, the U.S.
Fire Administration and the Emergency Management Institute, offer a wide range of
courses to first responders and other state and local officials. FEMA also administers
several grant programs that assist states and localities with emergency planning and
hazard mitigation.56 Both H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 propose transferring FEMA into
the new DHS. In both proposals, FEMA would constitute one division of the new
department, focusing on emergency preparedness and response.
Analysis. Some analysts and policy makers fear that incorporating FEMA into
the new DHS would detract from the Agency’s mission to assist states and localities
to prepare for natural disasters as well as its response and recovery missions. For
example, James Lee Witt, former Director of FEMA, has said:
In the atmosphere of the past year (including the period prior to September 11th)
the devotion to terrorism planning has already affected the FEMA mission. All
the momentum for pre-disaster mitigation work with communities has been lost.
Folding FEMA into a homeland or national security agency will seriously
compromise the nation’s previously effective response to natural hazards.57
The Brookings Institution analysis of the DHS proposal echoes this concern,
suggesting that if FEMA were incorporated into the DHS, much of the progress the
agency has made over the past decade could be reversed.58
On the other hand, the Administration has emphasized that integration into the
DHS would not interfere with FEMA’s natural disaster preparedness activities. It
suggests that FEMA’s progress in this area could lead to improvements in terrorism
preparedness:
[The DHS] would continue FEMA’s efforts to reduce the loss of life and
property and to protect our nation’s institutions from all types of hazards through
a comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazards emergency management program of
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. And it will continue to change
the emergency management culture from one that reacts to terrorism and other
disasters, to one that proactively helps communities and citizens avoid becoming
victims....
The Department would continue FEMA’s practice of focusing on risk
mitigation in advance of emergencies by promoting the concept of disaster-
resistant communities. It would continue current federal support for local
56For more information on FEMA’s natural disaster activities, see CRS Report RL31285,
FEMA's Mission: Policy Directives for The Federal Emergency Management Agency , by
Keith Bea; and CRS Report RS20071, The United States Fire Administration: An Overview,
by Len Kruger; also see FEMA training web site: [http://training.fema.gov/].
57James Lee Witt and Associates, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA
(Washington: 2002), unpublished.
58Brookings Institution, Assessing the Department of Homeland Security (Washington: July,
2002), p. vi. Available at: [http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/homeland/
assess.htm], visited July 22, 2002.

---

CRS-15
government efforts that promote structures and communities that have a reduced
chance of being impacted by disasters.59
Policy Alternatives.
Integrate FEMA. One approach would be to integrate FEMA into the DHS,
but instruct the DHS Secretary to maintain FEMA’s current activities in natural
disaster preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation. This approach may allow the DHS
to improve terrorism preparedness by building upon FEMA’s successes, while
preserving federal resources for natural disaster preparedness. Both H.R. 5005 and
S. 2452 list responding to and preparing for natural disasters as duties of the DHS.
During House deliberations, an Amendment was added to H.R. 5005 preserving
FEMA’s current focus on four phases of emergency management—mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery. The amendment also emphasized maintaining
programs oriented toward all hazards.60
Alternatively, the DHS Secretary could be given discretion to determine the
department’s balance between terrorism preparedness and natural disaster
preparedness activities. Some observers argue that the current threat from terrorists
warrants the end of FEMA’s all-hazards approach to emergency management in favor
of emphasis on terrorism preparedness. This approach, however, could meet with
criticism from observers who argue that, despite the threat of terrorism, an all-
hazards approach is necessary to help states and localities prepare for natural
disasters.61
Leave FEMA as an Independent Agency. Another approach would be to
leave FEMA an independent agency, but transfer its national security-related
functions to the DHS. This approach may allow the DHS to focus on terrorism
preparedness and allow FEMA to continue its focus on natural disaster preparedness
and disaster relief.
Although this approach was not taken by the House or the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, some House committees recommended such an approach in their
markups of H.R. 5005. The House Judiciary Committee, for example, recommended
maintaining FEMA’s independence, observing that its “... main mission as a
consequence management agency is to respond to natural disasters.” The committee,
however, did recommend transferring FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness,
which assists states and localities with preparing for weapons of mass destruction,
to the DHS.62 The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has
59see U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, p. 11.
60See House Amdt. 575 (Young) to H.R. 5005, agreed to July 25, 2002; also see S. 2452 (as
agreed to), sec. 134(b)(1) and (b)(4).
61For example, see Witt and Associates, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA; and
Brookings Institution, Assessing the Department of Homeland Security, p. vi.
62U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, “Summary of H.R. 5005 Markup,”
107th Cong., 2nd sess. , July 12, 2002. Available at: [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/
(continued...)

---

CRS-16
responsibility for overseeing FEMA’s operations, also recommended leaving the
agency independent, but instructed it to work with DHS to distinguish each agency’s
duties.63
This approach, however, could leave the DHS without the necessary resources
to adequately prepare states and localities for terrorist attacks. Integrating FEMA
could allow the DHS to use the Agency’s training and grant administration resources
and its existing relationships with state and local institutions. Not integrating FEMA
into the DHS might also continue the perceived lack of coordination of federal
preparedness assistance programs.
Conclusion
Congress is examining a range of issues as it considers H.R. 5005 and S. 2452.
This report addresses several issues relating to state and local preparedness and the
duties of proposed EPR division. For more information on preparedness issues and
the Department of Homeland Security proposals, see CRS Report Rl31510, Proposed
Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, by Keith Bea. For
general information on state and local preparedness issues, see CRS Report
RL31266, State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Policy Issues and Options,
by Ben Canada.
62(...continued)
homeland071502.PDF], visited July 22, 2002.
63U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Explanation of
Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 5005,” 107th Cong., 2nd sess., July 11, 2002. Available at:
[http://www.house.gov/transportation/homelandsecurity/amendmentexplanation.html],
visited July 19, 2002.

---